The methods section is the most important section of a paper.
Without knowing the methods, the results are literally meaningless.
So it's not OK to relegate the methods to the end. Because this suggests they are an optional afterthought rather than the essential core of the entire paper.
Hey psychologists, when you're explaining some psychological phenomenon that's perfectly well captured in psychological terms, maybe you don't need to refer to some shitty neuroimaging study with ten people to make it seem more "sciencey"...
This...the fetishizing of unreplicable neuroscience in order to legitimize our work is self-defeating. We don't need to know that depression is in the brain (as opposed to what???) to know it is problematic. How much money have we wasted proving something like depression is "real"?